In Plato Associates, LLC v. Environmental Compliance Services, Inc., 298 Conn. 852 (2010), the high court clarified the law regarding the circumstances under which the seven year statute of repose in General Statutes § 52-584a (suits against an architect, professional engineer or land surveyor) applies as opposed to the shorter statutes of limitations in negligence and contract claims.
Working one's way through the morass of governmental immunity law is a daunting task. In Merritt v. Bethel Police Department, 120 Conn. App. 806, (2010), although the Appellate Court comes down on the side of the municipality because the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that her son, the decedent, was either a member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims or an identifiable person subject to imminent harm, the case provides the opportunity to review this area of law.
In Hogan v. Lagosz, 124 Conn App. 602 (2010) (October 26, 2010), the Appellate Court reiterated the rules of apparent authority in this action to enforce a settlement agreement signed by the defendant's attorney. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court had improperly concluded that her lawyer possessed apparent authority to act on her behalf. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the lower court properly concluded that the defendant by her conduct, interpreted in light of the surrounding circumstances, caused the belief on the part of the plaintiff that the attorney had the requisite authority to sign the agreement on her behalf.